446. In view of the foregoing, this Court cannot prove that any of Mr. Martínez’s rights was violated. 447. Fifth, it was also alleged before this Court that Mr. Martínez was prevented from commenting on the introduction of evidence, in breach of his right to participate in the first and second hearings of April 3, 2006, when the trial court stated that “the intervention of the accused will be limited to his statements, since his petitions should be handled by his technical defense in accordance with Article 345 […].” 631 In this regard, the representatives did not provide this Court with sufficient arguments or evidence to determine why the requirement to file petitions through the technical defense represented a violation of his right to defense, and therefore it does not find any violation in relation to this point. C.2.1.2. Alleged denial of the right to introduce evidence 448. Mr. Martínez’s representatives alleged that part of the documentary evidence was never analyzed, and that the State refused to receive testimonial and documentary evidence proposed by Mr. Martínez’ defense. They also alleged that the State had concealed or lost documentary evidence for the defense, all this, in violation of Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention. 449. Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention establishes the “minimum guarantee” of “the right of the defense to examine the witnesses present in court and to obtain the attendance, as witnesses or experts, of other persons who can shed light on the facts,” which embodies the principles of adversarial proceedings and procedural equality. The Court has pointed out that, among the guarantees recognized to those who have been accused of an offense is the right to examine the witnesses against them and in their favor, under the same conditions, in order to exercise their defense. 632 450. This Court recalls that the arguments presented by the representatives of Mr. Martínez were also included in the cassation appeal decided by the Third Chamber on March 11, 2008 (supra paras. 321 to 324). With respect to the alleged violations of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, in Chapter VIII.I of this judgment this Court considered that the Third Chamber carried out a comprehensive review of the judgment (supra paras. 328 and 329). In this regard, this Court has established that “[i]t is up to the State’s courts to examine the facts and the evidence presented in the individual cases” and that, in principle, it is not up to this Court to determine whether the domestic courts made a correct evaluation of their domestic law. 633 In this sense, the representatives did not provide arguments or evidence that would allow this Court to determine whether the actions of the Third Chamber are contrary to the provisions established in Article 8(2)(f) of the Convention. Therefore, the alleged violation is not proven. C.2.1.3. Alleged violation of the right to read the judgment 451. The representatives of Mr. Martínez also alleged that the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José did not read out the entire conviction judgment and that they were Cf. Record of Hearings No. 1 and 2 of April 3, 2006 (evidence file, folio 24757). Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 154, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche indigenous people) v. Chile, supra, para. 242. See also, ECHR, Case of Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo, Judgment of December 6, 1998, Series A no. 146, para. 78 and ECHR, Case of Bönishc. Judgment of May 6, 1985, Series A No. 92, para. 32. 633 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 192. 631 632 137